yes, this can be rejected. Unfortunately I don’t do RT so someone else will need to do that.
> On 13 Oct 2017, at 13:48, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev > <alex.jakime...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh. I guess this has to be rejected then. > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen <l...@dijkmat.nl> wrote: > > > On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:37, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) > > <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote: > > > > # New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev > > # Please include the string: [perl #132281] > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132281 > > > > > > > Code: > > say "blogger".comb.Bag # if you want for all the letters > > > > ¦«2015.12»: > > bag(r, l, g(2), b, e, o) > > > > ¦«2016.06»: > > bag(r, l, g(2), b, e, o) > > > > ¦«2016.12»: > > bag(r, l, g(2), b, e, o) > > > > ¦«2017.06»: > > bag(e, l, b, g(2), o, r) > > > > ¦«f72be0f130cf»: > > Bag(b, e, g(2), l, o, r) > > > > > > Possible IRC discussion: > > https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-10-09#i_15278073 > > > > > > Bisectable: (2017-07-20) > > https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/21b9a720c75656b13805611544aa5ee64c4924ae > > > > > > To be honest, I don't know if that's a reasonable ticket. I guess it > > doesn't really matter if it's bag or Bag, but I'm pretty sure that the > > change was unintentional so I'm submitting it as a ticket. > > > > Maybe “bag()” is better because it resembles an actual syntax. Kind of. > > Judge yourself. > > The two are *not* the same. Bag(foo) is the same as foo.Bag. Which implies > taking all values as is. Whereas bag() implies looking at the values in the > same way as “.new-from-pairs”. Observe: > > $ 6 'dd bag({a => 42}); dd Bag({ a => 42 })' > (:a(42)).Bag > ("a"=>42).Bag >
